Sports Illustrated lays off last remaining staff photographers

On the eve of the Super Bowl, legendary US-based sports publication 'Sports Illustrated' has laid off its remaining six full-time staff photographers. According to Sports Illustrated director of photography Brad Smith, speaking to News Photographer Magazine, the decision was made due to 'economic circumstances'.

The cover of the current issue of Sports Illustrated, which today fired all six of its remaining staff photographers.

NPM quotes Smith as saying that the plan is 'to re-evaluate what's best for the magazine, not just financially but also content-wise. Our commitment to photography is as strong as ever, and we will continue to create the best original content possible'.

The news that Sports Illustrated - which has been in continuous publication since 1954 - has now dispensed entirely with staff photographers has been greeted with shock and dismay among industry professionals. We spoke to Jordan Stead, staff photographer for Seattle PI.com, to get his reaction.

Jordan, you’ve worked alongside some of the Sports Illustrated photographers at various sports events - how do you feel about this news?

People are used to hearing about photo staff at newspapers being cut, - the obvious example being the Chicago Sun Times which cut its entire photo department in 2013, and then actually hired back a couple of their staffers, once they realized what a mistake they’d made. But this is different. We’re losing an historic, picture-powered publication.

People in the newsroom have very little power over this sort of thing. This has nothing to do with the people over there producing the magazine. You look at Sports Illustrated, and what does everyone always say? Its about the images. And I don’t mean any disrespect to the writers but everyone who knows what Sports Illustrated is, knows the magazine because they’ve been running big pictures for years. They’ve been running color, and big double-truck photos for longer than anyone else.

The other thing that’s interesting about SI - and I was just talking about this with my co-worker Josh Trujillo after last week’s game - is that we see the SI photographers at the big games, and we’ll often be shooting side-by-side with them. And when you compare everyone else’s work to the SI shooters - even when they’re literally shooting from right next to you - their images just have this look. The players are jumping just a little higher, maybe, or the composition is just a little better. Everything is just… premium. Their sports photography is legendary and the photographers that were just laid off are living legends too.

What will those photographers do now?

Well the good news here I think is that they’re so well-known, and they’re such high-calibre photographers that I doubt they’ll have trouble finding another job whether it's as staff photographers or freelancers. I really don’t think someone like Robert Beck is going to stay out of work and not be able to make another dollar from here on out just because he just got laid off from Sports Illustrated. Things change, and he’s such a good photographer and he’s been a legend for so long that I don’t think he’s going to have a problem. And the same goes for the other five photographers.

And what do you think will happen to the magazine?

What do I think will happen? That’s an interesting question. Obviously the SI will be using freelancers and wire imagery but the whole beauty of a team of photographers putting out consistent work, working together is that there’s a consistent look to the coverage. And when you start hiring different freelancers and using wire content that intermixes with everything else… there’s nothing wrong with that, but the sports coverage is going to start looking like everyone else’s. Because the guy who’s shooting for SI today might have shot for Getty yesterday, and another place the day before.

The magazine is saying that quality of coverage will be maintained - do you think that’s realistic?

Of course they’ll continue to publish amazing content. There are amazing photographers everywhere, including amazing freelancers. And I’m sure they’ll hire some of their former staffers as freelancers, so they’ll probably still get their work in SI often. Do I think it’s going to be as consistent as it’s always been? That’s what I think is still up in the air.

Are the cost savings worth it, for a publication like Sports Illustrated?

From a strictly financial standpoint I suppose it’s possible but I’d go back to the personal style, the consistent voice and the consistent product that has made SI so unique. This is Sports Illustrated, you know? The premier sports publication.

The name of the magazine is literally 'Sports Illustrated'! Who’s illustrating the sport? It’s the photographers.

I guess SI will send the bean counters to the Super Bowl with phone cameras to get that double page center fold, in place of the ten or twelve photographers that have shot the Super Bowl in the past. Of course I have noticed lately with the exception of week before last issue, a great many of their images were not SI staffers

Regardless of the state of magazines and editorials the joke was still implying that soccer moms with dslr's (notorious for becoming "pro" photographers and charging ridiculously low rates for lower quality work after buying a dslr to shoot their kids, although some are actually quite good) would be shooting the superbowl. The humor of the joke is in the fact that Sports illustrated is attempting to cut costs and willing to accept less consistently good work. How much farther can you cut costs than a soccer mom willing to shoot the superbowl for 50 bucks?

Yes....thats why it was a joke....which are not always founded in logical deductions. Just the thought of a soccer mom toting a few kids showing up to the bowl with a press pass and the 5dm3 she bought to stick in auto amd snap shots of her kids should be enough to make you chuckle. Unless you're a vulcan...are uou a vulcan?

I think the media companies that are downsizing their print/magazines business, and the advertisers, and instead focuses on the internet misses one thing, that will be more and more relevant. The channel (internet) is getting extremely crowded. Through that screen you compete not only with millions of other media sites but also with peoples mail, Facebook, all kinds of social media. There will be a digital clogging. A physical product is a way to get attention beside the constant and increasing flow of digital noise.

"we're talking about magazines specifically, which is in every way inferior to its digital counterpart"Spoken like a true member of the Facebook/Selfie/Flicker generation! Right on! Who needs the printed word or photo? Just hang your monitor on the wall. Fill the libraries with iPads, ditch the books and periodicals.

The iPad has killed off print.And the public love the iPad.I suspect that very shortly (if not already) you will be able to read a publication via a contact lens, and the images will move (short video clips).What comes after that….the mind boggles.Keep up, or keep out.

And flying cars, dust repelling paper, and hoverboards are all coming this year, too. Many things are possible, very few things that are possible can be mass produced at a profit. Many, many of the most cutting edge technologies you read articles about today will stay in the lab for the next 50 years, and even then many won't be cost effective to sell to the public.

HRAW,Some technologies require others to perpetuate themselves. Cell phones wouldn't be anything without the network of towers around the country to enable their existence. Fax machines couldn't be really useful without data transmission of sufficient bandwidth, nationwide or worldwide infrastructure, and printing technology that could keep up. Until then you might as well call or telegram.Programmable digital computers in the form of punch cards on a loom are all well and good, but for digital to be done on a world-altering scale, you need millions of transistors not hundreds of vacuum tubes or boxes of punch cards making patterns in textiles.LED's have been around forever but it took the cost of other things rising to motivate anyone to develop them into high-output lighting.It isn't the invention that is important, it's the need for it, the cost of it, the competition, public interest, and a million other things. Without the canvas you might as well paint using sand in a storm.

Um, okay. I fully admit that other things need to get developed. And I acknowledged computers needed transistors and other things.

Glad you got the loom thing. There's another late 19th century digital computer.

I said OLED lighting, just to be clear that's very different than an LED.

And LEDs do such a better job than fluorescents that if they could have been developed sooner, I think they would have. And the idea of being able to skip changing light bulbs in ceiling mounts 20+ feet in the air would seem like another real motivation.

So I'm with you, but I think things could have been different and sometimes that means things can get out of the lab a bit sooner.

I was using LED as an example of a technology looking for a market. And that's lighting, which is an easy market to find a niche. At least once you're in a niche you have a place to grow from.Why aren't we driving around all electric cars? Electric cars have been around longer than internal combustion vehicles, but the technology it relies on to be a viable option in the market is much more complicated than the concept itself.What we think is neat and convenient and worth the cost ignores what is profitable and demanded in high enough volume to make the investment pay off with high enough dividends for anyone to bother with the risk. We have crowd funding for things like that now, and with larger populations it will become easier to find a niche that is still profitable even at relatively low demand based on percentages because volume will still be high.You can think and wish all you want, but the idiosyncrasies of investors and customers and business politics will prevail.

As for LED lighting, I think the market has been there for a while, provided the lights could be made as bright as a 75watt incandescent bulb. And I don't know how long that's been possible. But I do know that one of the continuing challenges with LED lighting is heat dissipation.

Just like many other technologies, the new and improved stuff has to compete with production lines already in place with huge advantages in economy of scale and established reliability. All the technical differences in the world won't beat two very simple concepts: thresholds of performance and cost. If something is small enough, does what is required, weighs a reasonable amount, goes far enough, or whatever else and it's cheap, then it wins. Performance (both in function and usability/size/etc) and cost have to line up to displace established technologies....oh, and demand which sometimes requires something as simple as public perception and good marketing. A good example is the iPod. Nothing new, nothing cheap, but it was released with other useful services and sold in a way that was compelling. It wasn't a pain to use for a change and it had a good service along with a good add campaign.

This is what happens when you have Getty & Corbis selling images at big discounts. They have very good photographers that work on spec. The new business model is that you don't have to pay a photographer a salary, buy them gear, fly them to events, put them up in hotels, give them a per diem for food and incidentals. Go to Getty and pull what you need from their site. No doubt SI already has a deal with Getty in place.

They'll probably save at least $300K a year by not employing staff photographers. And that's just from the photographers salary. Add in the incidentals and it's a lot more.

Unfortunately, it's the staff photographers that are getting f'd because of people working for spec. It's just like in the wedding business where you have to compete with some really good photographers that have day jobs and do it for cheap because it's fun for them.

Actually cameras should only be allowed to be sold to certified professionals. And don't get me started on people renovating their own homes!Or people playing guitar in a pub for pocket change, just because they have an edjucation and can get a daytime job.

@Eleson: You have completely misunderstood the point of my post. I am simply stating a FACT. The market has changed. There are a lot of good full-time pros that work for spec at agencies. I'm one of them.

There are also a lot of good semi-pro photographers working for spec.

Nowhere in my post did I imply that amateurs shouldn't be photographers. If you're a staffer your days are numbered in the publishing industry. I've lost staff jobs to to people that shoot for free.

My point is simply this: There are A LOT of good photographers working cheap. If you want to survive in the business you adapt. You cut rates, you work on spec, or you change careers.

This isn't the pro vs. am argument you seem to think it is. Settle down and read for comprehension.

The only ones that are winning in this business model are the agencies and the magazines.

@ JDThomas - I think (and hope) Eleson was tongue-on-cheek and a tad bit on side of sarcasm. Your point about the evolving nature of the photography business evolving as technology changes is spot on. As the technology becomes more user friendly and more accessible (read less expensive), folks who otherwise would not have bothered are going t get involved, some of them will be 'gifted amateurs' doing it as a hobby or part-time and that will impact the 'professionals'.

Times change, business models change - imagine owning a horse stable and feedstore in the first couple of decades of the last century...say...1920 on, adapt or perish.

@The Vorlon: Yes, it was likely sarcasm, but his remark didn't pertain to what I was saying. He was insinuating I was blaming "amateurs" for killing the business. And it is a big reason the photo business is a dying game for pros. But, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

In the end, owning a horse stable or feed store in the present day is a lucrative business. Because it's a niche market.

What's really killing a lot of things is the culture of "good enough." (I believe there is a post somewhere on dpreview about this.) Too many people truly believe that mediocre is just as good as excellent. People who only view thumbnail photos on their iPads really can't understand that a large (say, 20x30in or larger) photo at 300dpi reveals more detail. Or that their cellphone really can't get a decent zoom shot of surfers half a mile out.

Also, people who walk around all day with a phone glued to their ear (or stuffed into it) really can't understand the value of the experience of reading, or the benefits of print media for random perusal, skimming, etc. Print is in trouble in the US partly because we are becoming a nation of semi-literates. I love photography and video, but the printed word has immense value--even though people increasingly are unable to perceive that value.

@Kawika Nui: You are absolutely right. People are inundated by poor photography. Every day people are assaulted by terrible photographs, on facebook, twitter, instagram, and all over the web that even a mediocre photo looks like a good one to them.

The photo editors of the websites maintained by major magazine publishers aren't trained in photography. Typically it's a young girl that has just graduated with a degree in PR. They simply go to Getty and grab the first thing that catches their eye. It doesn't matter if it's a good image as long as the content fits the context. They don't even know what makes a good photograph.

@ JDThomas and Kawika Nui - while to a certain extent I can understand your point, the fact is that the way people perceive, consume and view content has changed and the photography industry will have to adapt. While you are correct that a 300 dpo 20x30in print reveals incredible detail, how many folks are really printing at that size. Today, most imagery is consumed either on device (tablet, computer, etc) or occasional prints. Most prints are automated in discount and drug stores. While art house printing exists and even some independent photography stores, they are niche businesses that make a living by catering to a subset of the larger population. Photographers are going to have to adapt to that, staff photographers are going to be rarity - the economics are driving it that way. You can either acknowledge it and adapt or stamp your feet and wish it otherwise - which is more productive?

To complete a thought, earlier in this post I drew a parallel to the development of the automobile and the impact on stables, tack shops and feedlots - JDThomas did point out that those businesses have become a niche, and in some cases a very profitable one - however, it does reinforce the point that technology change is disruptive. The industry supporting horses is much smaller, employing significantly less full time employees. Similarly the shakeup in the photography business is going to be the same - there will be a lot less people making photography a full time business.One can make an argument about technology change being for the worse, and that some 'art' will be lost, but that isn't going to change things, times change.

@Vorlon: If you're addressing your remark to the fact that "mediocre is good enough" then I will absolutely NOT adapt to that. And I will stamp my feet and yell out about it.

The media should be educated about the lack of quality images in their products. If you just sit back and let them go on with it, the whole photography industry suffers.

Look what happened at Chicago Sun Times. They laid off all of their photographers assuming the reporters could take the photos. Then the photos SUCKED and they rehired 4 of them. If nobody had said anything about it and remained complacent they's still be running iPhone photos on their cover.

Yes, the industry is changing and you need to adapt, but you don't need to accept that mediocre photography is OK.

@ JDThomas - my pardon,perhaps I was not clear enough. My comment about 'good enough' was more in reference to the idea around photography being judged on the criteria of equipment or some arbitrary pixel count. The composition of a picture, taken at the right moment, is the real 'art' of photography. Equipment does play a part in that, granted, however the real 'value' is in the skill.

That being said, adjustments to the business model of photography need to be recognized. The Chicago Sun Times is an example, they fired all of their staff photographers, realized the problem, hired 4 back - not all, some.

My comment about 'stamping feet and screaming' is more directed at the idea of those who would deny change is coming, rather than position themselves for the change.

@Vorlon: Not a problem, there are a lot of opinions flying around and it's easy to misread what some is trying to say. My idea of "good enough" pertains to the composition, subject matter, etc.

I don't really think that there is special threshold of pixel count or camera brand that magically makes a photo "good".

No doubt SI will hire back some photographers as well. It won't take them long to figure out that they will need specific coverage that may not be available through wire services.

The sad truth is that photography has been seriously devalued in the digital age due to the pervasiveness of images. The public truly thinks it's just pointing the right way and pressing a button. And as I mentioned, people see so many bad images that a mediocre one looks like a great one to them. Just "shoot wide open and get you some "bokey" and you got a perfessional lookin' pitcher!"

@Vorlon: Change isn't coming, change is HERE. I embraced the DSLR when I bought my Kodak DCS 460 and being an early adopter I reaped the rewards. Because the camera was so expensive I was one of the only people in the racing circuit that could provide images instantly and I sold photos to race teams for a mint. But as camera prices came down my profits also waned, because others started buying cameras and taking their own photos. It was gradual, because some clients did see the quality difference. Eventually though it wasn't profitable anymore and we folded up the business.

I moved on to other types of photography, but eventually I keep having to switch things up as trends catch up with me.

This is what happens when the bottom line becomes the only reason to operate a business. When you have the company run by the bean counters rather than by the product oriented management as was the case at one time, then the only thing that matters is increasing profit margin over what it was in the last quarter.

This is the demand of the investment community aka Wall Street. Theinvestment gurus on Wall Street make a prediction as to what the next quarter's profits and dividends will be. If the company doesn't make that mark even though it may have increased it's profits over the last quarter, the company is deemed to have failed and the stock price drops. This is what happens when the decisions are made by the street instead of the company's product division.

It is all going down hill fast and it seems to make no difference what product the company makes as long as it can cut costs to artificially inflate the profit line to keep the investors happy.

Some good points well made. The only way to make good money from photography today is to sell TRAINING & INSIGHT to those who dream of being the next Dennis... I got out of pro weddings some years back - not worth all the hard work and clients demanding work for less (or nothing). Enjoy taking pics guys but dream on if you think its a good living anymore...

Microsoft stock hasn't performed real well in years, it's isn't simply Ballmer or the fiasco of Vista. It's that people who grew up using computers are now in charge of making mass purchasing decisions.

Also there weren't mass layoffs at Microsoft while Gates ran it day to day.

Investors in the remnants of the Time magazine empire are likely to be disappointed.

If you want a good still photo of say a pro tennis match you still need a photographer with good gear onsite. This is not going to change anytime soon.

It doesn't matter if the photo is printed or posted on the interwebs.

In other words you've posted a confused point.

As for cars and horses, well the dung and the dead horses went away. But thing thing is cars were a mess to use for 20 years, and then it was another 20 before various governments started building good roads for cars.

The issue here has nothing to do with old technology being replaced by something else/better. It's purely a matter of economics. Printed media are saving money by firing as many people as they possibly can due to less advertising income and falling circulation. Other posters have already pointed out the negative consequences this will have for SI in the case of their photographers. (I myself was forced into early retirement due to cost cutting measures at the daily newspaper where I've been working for almost 30 years.)

What's is going to replace the horse? Meaning what is going to replace the good still photo of pro sports events?

I can think of replacements for SI, or print, but not the photographer.

Now in 20 years when 8K cameras can easily record hours of raw footage (that's raw files), then maybe most good still photographs will get pulled out of video. (Though the cameras will still need operators.)

If we cared about Orcas, we'd probalby ban the screw drive propellers on ships in 2015.

Not news that new tech can introduce problems, and still nothing to do with SI. The internet didn't kill SI, the fact that SI can't generate revenue from the internet through its own stupid policies is the problem.

For me, the transport vehicle (horse and carriage) is the newspaper, and the car is other media that replaces the paper form. And any solution that tries to keep the paper form alive is bound to fail, and other presences must be made more important. With or without pictures.

From a cost efficiency perspective, how many photog's are sufficient around a soccer field to provide pictures that are good enough for a cheaper media? Is there a market for 40 photog's taking the same shot at a press conference?

Cane is one of those master pithy commenters who are found on most Internet forums. They are easy to identify because they cannot muster the brain power to compose more than a supposedly clever one-sentence observation. (Or they are simply too lazy...)

Trying to reason with such a person is a waste of time... His mind is made up because he won't allow facts and human experience to challenge his cynical view of the world.

In the past, how did SI staff photographers get into premium sporting events? Presumably they were invited or special arrangements were made. Can freelancers even get sideline/trackside/courtside access to premium sporting events? Most venues don't allow regular ticket-buyers to use "pro" cameras. How will SI guarantee they will have good quality photos of any particular event since a freelancer who gets in can just sell his or her work to the highest bidder. For some events, SI might end up buying iPhone photos taken by a "freelancer" in the front row.

Good Point. Some venues make a big deal out of only allowing "Legitimate" photographers do any kind of photography and will run anyone out who doesn't have a press pass who shows up with even a decent DLSR with a kit lens. Been there, done that.

Anyone who thinks that this news has an "upside" is simply deluding themselves... and likely never worked a single day as a freelance photographer.

This is just another example of the abandonment of the American worker in favor of owners, management and shareholders. What amazes me is that many younger people are OK with what is happening; if American labor history was taught in public schools they would probably have a very different viewpoint.

We are returning to the Bad Ol' Days before the Great Depression when workers were at the mercy of employers. It's fashionable to denigrate unions and government regulation but they created the foundation of the American Dream: reasonable work hours and pay, health insurance and financial security when a person is no longer able to work.

Look at what the SI photographers have "gained": less pay, a doubling of employment taxes and having to cover business expenses, health insurance and retirement. Great for SI, bad for the photographers.

Cane,He's saying that those in power only want more power, and money being power you can use those two terms interchangeably. People who are sociopaths think of nothing but themselves, gaining more money, gaining more power simply as a result of a runaway sense of self-preservation with zero sense of social responsibility. Civilization and society require people look out for not only themselves but also try to make sure others aren't too bad off if for no other reason then to avoid being overrun by starving, unhappy people with clubs and pitch forks. If we aren't going to have a society or be civilized then our population needs to be about five or six million so the tribes of humanity rarely meet and have very little competition for resources while at the same time spending a vast majority of our effort simply trying to survive to the next day. The cost of society, civilization, and life as we know is to realize we're inches away from millions of people ready to ruin us.

That's the problem with America and increasingly other "advanced" economic countries.They don't teach labour history, because the capitialist class don't want it and they've bought the politicians.

The young people dont get it because at the moment they think they can all be the top of the pile winners.It will take 20 years or so for them to realise that most of them are going to be sucking hind tit because there are only so many seats at the table.Every one else (these days literally) waits on the table.

The upside with the US is the 2nd ammmendment. The question is, will you use it?

Hopefully this will backfire...for example, contract photographers will be in more demand and hopefully be able to demand higher prices. If you get a great shot and you know SI doesn't have their own photographer at the event, then you are in a good negotiating position...Also, competing media outlets have a shot to grab a larger market share if the quality of SI goes down.

how many of posters in this message chain actually subscribe to SI (print copy)? I look into si.com if I need info about an event and glance though the magazine once a while in the physician office or barber shop.

Replacing good middle class jobs with no pension, no benefits "independent contractor" positions makes a lot of sense - for the handful of millionaires and billionaires. This is why the combined wealth of the richest one percent will overtake that of the other 99% by 2016.

Yep, i bet you can get articles written for free by the students who want badly to have their name under any published text.

Or just publish the description you get with the photo, written by the photographer. This way, in just no time, the freelancer photographers will be have to able to also write a few nice lines along the photo, to be able to sell.

The photographers are laid off but the magazine will still need photos.

By laying these guys off, the magazine pays no benefits/tax.The photographers become independent contractors and pick up their own health insurance and pay additional tax to be self employed.

The magazine will not sever business relations and start using mobile pics :^)This is about costs for benefits and travel expense.

The only way they will not continue doing business with SI is if they ask prices that are too much even for their well recognized work. They will still get the better shots (based on comments below) and sell them to someone.

They use contract photographers now (Dave Black comes to mind) and will do that or take advantage of wire services. Heck, contract photographers have been shooting the swimsuit issue for how long now? Stock photography doesn't enter into it.

But I looked at a recent SI and it had virtuallyno advertising. I suspect a cutback to monthly is in its future as well.

The print magazine is pretty slim. Next step would seem to be online only. This is where it's at today, especially with advent of fantasy sports. Look at Time Magazine, similar very slim print magazine.

I haven't bought a paper magazine in probably a decade, and going back further probably only a commemorative issue for some specific historic event. Almost everything I read nowadays is digital, even for work-related matters. So many professional and government journals are now online.

The freelancer I know who does quite a bit for ESPN Magazine, NY Times and a few othes is fairly well paid for his work. Yes it's sad that six people lost their jobs. But these are not newbies who will fighting it out for $500 weddings.

Case in point from Bill Frakes' Wikipedia page (which notes he's had a sidebusiness in addition to being on the masthead for S-I for a few years too.). "Bill Frakes is an American photographer who has been on the masthead of Sports Illustrated since 1993. On January 22, 2015, he and five other Sports Illustrated photographers were laid off. [1][2] In 2008, he cofounded Straw Hat Visuals, a Southern Media Company."

And how big a "staff" did that editor deal with? He was dealing directly with the audience/readers, as opposed to the people producing those articles/illustrations/photos dealing with the audience/readers. Was he the founding editor? The only one that publication ever had?

While publications employ a variety of people to gather content (at least they did prior to the internet) the personality of a publication is frequently a reflection of the top editor. That's true be it newspapers or magazines (or web sites).

Except in rare occasions readers interact with magazine, picking based on interest in the sport, not author.

Quick sample of SI (based on my iPad since I don't subscribe), based on the cover photo and the images on the content page. the main cover shot was a (former) staffer, the inset photo a contract photographer. Of the eight photo credits on the content page, one was an archive photo from the Red Army, two were staff photos, five were from from contract photographers.

Printed media is dying. The media simply needs time to reinvent itself. But whether the (pro) photography would be part of it...

IMO the photography has contributed its (tiny) share to the faster decay of the industry. The technological race, turned photography into something relatively expensive: high-dpi image not only needs good expensive gear to be taken with, but it also needs more expensive printing process to show it in its full glory. And people are attracted quicker to a nice image than to an interesting article. Thus the writing side of the media was let slide. Now, on the web, images are dirt cheap, but finding good writers (many of whom moved on) is harder than before. One might attract a visitor for five seconds with a flashy image, but they do not stay since content is pretty thin.

Photographers are "Photograph people, landscapes, merchandise, or other subjects, using digital or film cameras and equipment. May develop negatives or use computer software to produce finished images and prints. Includes scientific photographers, aerial photographers, and photojournalists."

Is hiring a freelance photographer all year cheaper than keeping a full-time staff photographer? I doubt it. I always thought "freelance" means you pay more per hour, or per job, than you would have a full-time employee.

Obviously, the freelance staff member won't get work benefits and such, but.......I don't know. I'm not an accountant. I just know how it works in several other industries.

Being a bookkeeper by day, I can tell you that senior staff benefits are killer to the company. Freelance is cheap and tho higher hourly rate may seem like a problem to a naked eye, for SI not needing to pay benefits will save a ton of money. This is your corporate America at it's worst: no responsibility for the people that work for the mag, hut full access to their talent.

dad_of_four - I think the "much smarter people than you or me" is a poor assumption.People who were able to get a a series of advanced degrees or had good connections or are more ruthless/selfish.That has little to do with being smart.People in positions of management or power are no smarter than us.They have smart staffs, sometimes. But they ignore them often.

For a Magazine who pride themselves on visual content and naming their magazine so to do something like that is just total non-sense .. and as everyone know, quality never come cheap. I doubt the saving really worth it

Speaking of it all, SI had over the years seen itself in a decline of quality already and part of the reason is its inability to fellow suite with their content, visual and others. This is purely an editorial thing and none a saving on any type of specific staff can help that

Agreed. A magazine that actually has been successful due mostly to its photographic content, does not have full time photographers anymore. Odd, to say the least. Or are they simply moving to using same types of pro photographers all year, but on contract basis (or job to job basis, paying for game days only for example) without paying out benefits for cost savings.

SI could just run photos of bikini models every issue, and change their name to SCI (Sporty Chicks Illustrated). I would love it if the fired photogs formed their own on-line mag to compete. Why not fire the director of photography Brad Smith? Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Seriously, the cost of 6 full page ads would cover the photogs yearly salary. If mags want to stay relevant, then they need to provide more content, and better content. Go to a newstand and look how skimpy and crappy most magazines have become.

Ironic battle. Most publications, including online, don't seem to understand that readers and potential subscribers want more content, not less. The current print magazine is so thin, don't understand why anyone would subscribe.

Businesses lay people off and re-hire them as freelancers/consultants so they don't have to pay them any benefits, d'oh. Welcome to America in the 21st century. This is how it works now folks. Being good is not that important. Plenty of people are good at whatever it is and there is always someone cheaper than you if you've been doing this for a while, especially if you are over 50. Now the same photographers will just have the privilege of doing the same work for less.

Conventional model for photography is no longer sustainable. Technology and business model have changed, and this is late reaction.However, I feel pendulum will swing back, but never to what it used to be.

Tough to justify paying for photographs when so many are willing to provide it for free. Like it or not Time, SI's parent company competes with Huffington post and similar business plans that pay nothing for writers or photographers.

These guys are not going to walk into a booming freelance career. If they have been full-time for any length of time then they have no contacts or relationships with clients outside of SI. They also will now have to compete with every other freelancer out there that does. while having to deal with running their own business and everything that goes with it.

This isn't the end of SI, far from it. This just means they no longer have to pay expensive medical insurance premiums, unemployment benefit payments, retirement programs (if they did in the first place), travel costs, yearly raises, and a few other expenses tied in with having staff employees. The most expensive part of most businesses is employee cost, and it doesn't go down. Hiring independently contracted staff (freelancers) has always been cheaper. In all likelihood the same photographers will still supply images to SI exclusively. The term contributing photographer will be used, instead of staff photographer, just as the bulk of National Geographic stories are credited.

There are lots of highly talented local photographers shooting every sporting event in the world, and a good post production expert can give you most any style you want in your publication if he has raw digital files to work with. I see this as jobs opening up, not going away.

Staples does the same thing..hire part timers..cut benefits ..deny health care...meanwhile the CEO takes in $10 Million a year ..and lest you thing he deserves such a pay,,staples has been on a decline for the last five years mainly because of incompetent management..

@ThatCamFan @Don SataI also work in commercial printing including distribution. There are so many unknown factors for us 3rd party viewers to know for sure which is costing the company so much. I do know from my experience our publication was way too expensive in it's distribution when it was mailed to everyone in our regional area at no charge. Advertising could no longer support it.We changed to people picking it up and local business, expanded our distribution and cut costs and waste at the same time. The distribution costs dropped by 90% and now is no longer our biggest expense. Labor is.Interestingly enough our commercial printing has increased tremendously, but not for publications, only marketing and promotional material.It's a different world from even five years ago in the printing business. I suppose that why there was no heavy printing equipment at GraphExpo this year.

Continued:The reason? People don't want to pay for content anymore. Subscriptions? Not when I can read it for free from another source.That's why the marketing material is increasing so much. Every business is fighting for that small sliver in their sector.Commercial Printing will change again too and not for the better.Newspapers and magazines won't die completely but they will never be back to what they were 15-20 years ago.Local news will probably continue in both print and online for a while, but many will fall by the wayside.Quality costs money. So many online outlets for news and pictures but the standards for writing and photography have dropped so much. I see it all the time and I'm sure you do too.Look at even the major news outlets. Typos in headlines and stories. Where are the proofreaders and editors? Being first has taken over all quality control. A factory would never be able to put this equivalent of work. Our media has sunk very low. That's the price of we pay.

Not to mentin stock photos in news stories, reporters with no grasp of the material they cover.Press releases reported as news, no independant fact finding or verification.Its a joke.But it works well for the powers that be when you have poor media.

I studied photojournalism at UT Austin back in the early 70's. I guess I had my chance then to get into photojournalism in its' hay day. But even then, I could see that it wouldn't bring me much of a living. Very competitive at that time too. Digital changed the game and now the internet even more. No I enjoy photography at my own pace without worrying about making a living at it. I hope all of you are not putting all of your marbles in the same basket!

Unknowingly click something that displayed this article about SI. Only time I open an SI magazine is at my physician's waiting room. Great action shots but... It is inevitable that print magazines will eventually join the dinosaurs and the hairy mammoths. Just like the Life magazine that folded shortly after I completed college, another magazine which thrives of excellent photography will shortly be biting the dust. I hope the National Geographics does not follow suit.

I don't think NatGeo rely on any one genre of reporting as much as SI does. Of course, images are the largest part of what they are, but they print, run TV channels and display on the web, alongside other activities like selling NG-branded merchandise.

NatGeo has been far smarter about things and has diversified their portfolio, embracing all the new media options, without losing sight of their core values. TV, web, mobiles, and more. SI.... not so much.

In case you have some extra cash you want to put to good use and at the same time earn 5% interest (not much but much better return than CD or savings account), consider an endowment to NGS. I think I made a $10K endowment 4 years ago.

Not sure what this book is but there is a clear trend in the USA as to a decline of respect and appreciation of employees. It began with the demise of unions during the Reagan Admin. and has continued. This is an inevitable trend of "pure" capitalism. Managers are required to test what they think they can cut until there is enough push-back to hurt. The exact same trend happened world-wide during the beginning of the 1900s. A desperate invention came out of it because a change had to occur - it is called communism/socialism. Not a good solution, but the abuse of workers was intolerable in most countries. Until voters, including well-meaning moderate Republican voters, wake-up to this negative trend, it will continue.

I could preach the value of it all day but when somebody will give it away for free then its hard to convince someone to write a check. 85% of the people on this forum would give an image to SI for credit just to say their images was in a magazine. Why pay for coffee when their are people who will give it to you. It may not taste as good but in the end you will drink it because its free.

It is human nature to get something for free. There are those who abuse the "one per person". While I only take photos now only for my enjoyment, I sometimes post it on social medium to share with friends. A few copy my photos and pass it as their own not giving credit to the source, instead of just providing a link. To combat that, I started putting watermark on the photos I share on social medium.

The traditional media made a terrible series of mistakes -- setting the precedent of giving stuff away for free on the Internet, cloning themselves from one another in the pursuit of circulation that never went up, and giving their ad business away to Google and Craigslist -- and the situation is not helped by the fact that the Internet has made information and imagery very cheap and very random. People think that because they read it on the Internet, it must true, and because they saw it on the Internet, the picture must be good enough.

The question isn't do people buy magazines. The question is do advertisers buy space. The answer is less and less every day. If I sell a canon camera why should I buy an ad in SI when I know I can buy an ad on DPR and get directly to my customers.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.